SMART Board is a proprietary technology that makes use of what is known as an interactive whiteboard or IWB. An IWB is a touch sensitive panel that allows its users to interact with a computer by using the panel as an input device while the image from the computer is projected onto the board. In addition, companies like SMART Technologies, make use of their own software to enhance the capabilities of the touch sensitive screen. The software often allows users to create interactive presentations that can display a multitude of subjects and allow for typical whiteboard content to be enriched by the capabilities of the computer and available software. As one teacher was quoted saying, “Now you can colour the lesson with sound, video, and images depending on the topic” (Smith, Higgins, Wall, & Miller, 2005).
There are many uses for an IWB inside the classroom and the only real limitation as to how it is used is the instructor. Some examples of how teachers have been using these boards include interactive, whole-class gaming, language learning with word/image associations, and math lectures containing real-time graphing and annotation capabilities. Essentially, IWBs provide full access to the capabilities of the computer, internet, and presentation software offered by its creators. Teachers have found these whiteboards to be highly interactive, quicken the pace of lessons, and facilitate “more efficient presentation and more professional delivery of resources” (Smith, Higgins, Wall, & Miller, p. 93). By allowing the instructors to interact with computers in this manner, they can detach themselves from in-class computer workstations and become more physically present to their students.
However, it is important to keep in mind that while the possibilities for in-class use of IWBs is seemingly endless, their ability to enhance or encourage learning depends strictly on how the teachers executes its use. Armstrong et al. found teachers tend to make sense of new technologies based on previous experiences. As such, many teachers will tend to use “digital whiteboards as an extension of the non-digital whiteboard” (Armstrong, Barnes, Sutherland, Curran, Mills, & Thompson, 2005). Using digital whiteboards in this manner is less effective and acts more as an interest enhancer. The key to successful use of IWBs is the interactive approach they bring to a teacher’s pedagogy.
Important Findings on Student Outcomes
Effective use of interactive whiteboards can support a wide range of learning styles. Using IWBs, instructors are able to utilize an array of multimedia that could include text, images, audio, and video. By including these formats in their instruction, teachers can engage students in new ways and maintain their attention throughout their lessons. In a study by Ambikairajah et al., students responded in saying the use of IWB technology helped them maintain concentration, interact more productively, and hold attention better (Eliathamby Ambikairaja, 2005). This suggests that IWBs have an advantage over non-digital whiteboards and improve student outcomes in the regular classroom.
In addition, learners have reported that the multi-sensory input has helped them remember more of their lesson. Students claimed that the stimulating images helped their recall as they could still see the imagery after lessons have completed (Smith, Higgins, Wall, & Miller, 2005). This implies that, when used effectively, interactive whiteboards can enhance student learning by gaining their attention, holding their concentration, and helping them internalize information and improve recall. However, aside from students' interviews and surveys, there is not much evidence in support of measuring these outcomes.
According to Smith et al., “it is debatable whether physical interaction with the board itself enhances learning, other than to motive pupils to pay attention” (p. 97). The true test is whether or not the increased attention gained by the IWBs actually results in better outcomes. Additionally, student outcomes based on attention are likely to be tied to the instructor’s abilities in the classroom as well as the technology being used. For example, a teacher presented in the study done by Armstrong et al., noticed that the fun and excitement brought out by interactive gaming with the board, tended to become the main factor and learning objectives became lost (p. 463).
Emerging Trends and Open Issues
One of the main emerging trends with IWBs, is that they are becoming more prevalent in schools and are slowly replacing their non-digital counter-parts. Teachers, students and governments have expressed a clear preference of IWBs over chalk and dust and have installed them in many classrooms already. However, it is not clear that use of IWBs will translate into effective instruction. As with all educational technologies, it is not what you use, but how you use it (Smith, Higgins, Wall, & Miller, 2005, p. 99). If teachers simply use this device as a replacement of the chalkboard, then the technology will not be used to its fullest potential. Teachers need to see the potential in the device and find ways for IWBs to intersect with the pedagogy in their classes. As IWBs become more prevalent, teachers need to have frequent and sustained access to IWBs as they can only be considered ‘transformative’ “when they become part of the regular fabric of classroom life (Smith, Higgins, Wall, & Miller, 2005).
While interactive whiteboards are making their way into more and more classrooms, one issue remains; teacher education. Like any technology being introduced to teachers for inclusion in the classroom, teacher education is a key to successful use of the tools. Teachers need to be taught how to use IWBs, so that their focus can be on their instruction and interaction with students and not their interaction with the technology. When instructors lack this training, it can obstruct and frustrate their goals, allowing IWB use to become lost and left by the way-side. However, when trained properly, instructors will be able to make use of the many features offered by IWBs and quickly trouble-shoot problems as they arise.
References
Armstrong, V., Barnes, S., Sutherland, R., Curran, S., Mills, S., & Thompson, I. (2005, November). Collaborative Research Methodology for Investigating Teaching and Learning: The use of interactive whiteboard technology. Educational Review, 57(4), 457-469.
Cambell, M. L., & Mechling, L. C. (2009, January/February). Small Group Computer-Assisted Instruction with SMART Board Technology: An investigation of observational and incidental learning of non target information. Remedial and Special Education, 30(1), 47-57.
Eliathamby Ambikairaja, J. E. (2005). Experiences with an Electronic Whiteboard Teaching Laboratory and Tablet PC-Based Lecture Presentations. ICASSP.
Lee, M., & Boyle, M. (2003, October). The Educational Effects and Implications of the Interactive Whiteboard Strategy of Richardson Primary School. Richardson Primary School.
López, O. S. (2010). The Digital Learning Classroom: Improving English language learners' academic success in mathematics and reading using interactive whiteboard technology. Computers & Education, 54, 901-915.
Smith, H. J., Higgins, S., Wall, K., & Miller, J. (2005). Interactive Whiteboards: Boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 91-101.
Yuanchun Shi, W. X. (2003, Apr.-June ). The Smart Classroom: Merging technologies for seamless tele-education. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 2(2), 47-55.
Reviewed By: (Peer Review Name 1, Peer Review Name 2)
SMART Board (example)
Noah KreisherDescription and Uses of Technology
SMART Board is a proprietary technology that makes use of what is known as an interactive whiteboard or IWB. An IWB is a touch sensitive panel that allows its users to interact with a computer by using the panel as an input device while the image from the computer is projected onto the board. In addition, companies like SMART Technologies, make use of their own software to enhance the capabilities of the touch sensitive screen. The software often allows users to create interactive presentations that can display a multitude of subjects and allow for typical whiteboard content to be enriched by the capabilities of the computer and available software. As one teacher was quoted saying, “Now you can colour the lesson with sound, video, and images depending on the topic” (Smith, Higgins, Wall, & Miller, 2005).
There are many uses for an IWB inside the classroom and the only real limitation as to how it is used is the instructor. Some examples of how teachers have been using these boards include interactive, whole-class gaming, language learning with word/image associations, and math lectures containing real-time graphing and annotation capabilities. Essentially, IWBs provide full access to the capabilities of the computer, internet, and presentation software offered by its creators. Teachers have found these whiteboards to be highly interactive, quicken the pace of lessons, and facilitate “more efficient presentation and more professional delivery of resources” (Smith, Higgins, Wall, & Miller, p. 93). By allowing the instructors to interact with computers in this manner, they can detach themselves from in-class computer workstations and become more physically present to their students.
However, it is important to keep in mind that while the possibilities for in-class use of IWBs is seemingly endless, their ability to enhance or encourage learning depends strictly on how the teachers executes its use. Armstrong et al. found teachers tend to make sense of new technologies based on previous experiences. As such, many teachers will tend to use “digital whiteboards as an extension of the non-digital whiteboard” (Armstrong, Barnes, Sutherland, Curran, Mills, & Thompson, 2005). Using digital whiteboards in this manner is less effective and acts more as an interest enhancer. The key to successful use of IWBs is the interactive approach they bring to a teacher’s pedagogy.
Important Findings on Student Outcomes
Effective use of interactive whiteboards can support a wide range of learning styles. Using IWBs, instructors are able to utilize an array of multimedia that could include text, images, audio, and video. By including these formats in their instruction, teachers can engage students in new ways and maintain their attention throughout their lessons. In a study by Ambikairajah et al., students responded in saying the use of IWB technology helped them maintain concentration, interact more productively, and hold attention better (Eliathamby Ambikairaja, 2005). This suggests that IWBs have an advantage over non-digital whiteboards and improve student outcomes in the regular classroom.
In addition, learners have reported that the multi-sensory input has helped them remember more of their lesson. Students claimed that the stimulating images helped their recall as they could still see the imagery after lessons have completed (Smith, Higgins, Wall, & Miller, 2005). This implies that, when used effectively, interactive whiteboards can enhance student learning by gaining their attention, holding their concentration, and helping them internalize information and improve recall. However, aside from students' interviews and surveys, there is not much evidence in support of measuring these outcomes.
According to Smith et al., “it is debatable whether physical interaction with the board itself enhances learning, other than to motive pupils to pay attention” (p. 97). The true test is whether or not the increased attention gained by the IWBs actually results in better outcomes. Additionally, student outcomes based on attention are likely to be tied to the instructor’s abilities in the classroom as well as the technology being used. For example, a teacher presented in the study done by Armstrong et al., noticed that the fun and excitement brought out by interactive gaming with the board, tended to become the main factor and learning objectives became lost (p. 463).
Emerging Trends and Open Issues
One of the main emerging trends with IWBs, is that they are becoming more prevalent in schools and are slowly replacing their non-digital counter-parts. Teachers, students and governments have expressed a clear preference of IWBs over chalk and dust and have installed them in many classrooms already. However, it is not clear that use of IWBs will translate into effective instruction. As with all educational technologies, it is not what you use, but how you use it (Smith, Higgins, Wall, & Miller, 2005, p. 99). If teachers simply use this device as a replacement of the chalkboard, then the technology will not be used to its fullest potential. Teachers need to see the potential in the device and find ways for IWBs to intersect with the pedagogy in their classes. As IWBs become more prevalent, teachers need to have frequent and sustained access to IWBs as they can only be considered ‘transformative’ “when they become part of the regular fabric of classroom life (Smith, Higgins, Wall, & Miller, 2005).
While interactive whiteboards are making their way into more and more classrooms, one issue remains; teacher education. Like any technology being introduced to teachers for inclusion in the classroom, teacher education is a key to successful use of the tools. Teachers need to be taught how to use IWBs, so that their focus can be on their instruction and interaction with students and not their interaction with the technology. When instructors lack this training, it can obstruct and frustrate their goals, allowing IWB use to become lost and left by the way-side. However, when trained properly, instructors will be able to make use of the many features offered by IWBs and quickly trouble-shoot problems as they arise.
References
Armstrong, V., Barnes, S., Sutherland, R., Curran, S., Mills, S., & Thompson, I. (2005, November). Collaborative Research Methodology for Investigating Teaching and Learning: The use of interactive whiteboard technology. Educational Review, 57(4), 457-469.
Cambell, M. L., & Mechling, L. C. (2009, January/February). Small Group Computer-Assisted Instruction with SMART Board Technology: An investigation of observational and incidental learning of non target information. Remedial and Special Education, 30(1), 47-57.
Eliathamby Ambikairaja, J. E. (2005). Experiences with an Electronic Whiteboard Teaching Laboratory and Tablet PC-Based Lecture Presentations. ICASSP.
Lee, M., & Boyle, M. (2003, October). The Educational Effects and Implications of the Interactive Whiteboard Strategy of Richardson Primary School. Richardson Primary School.
López, O. S. (2010). The Digital Learning Classroom: Improving English language learners' academic success in mathematics and reading using interactive whiteboard technology. Computers & Education, 54, 901-915.
Smith, H. J., Higgins, S., Wall, K., & Miller, J. (2005). Interactive Whiteboards: Boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 91-101.
Yuanchun Shi, W. X. (2003, Apr.-June ). The Smart Classroom: Merging technologies for seamless tele-education. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 2(2), 47-55.
Reviewed By: (Peer Review Name 1, Peer Review Name 2)